Cole hamels

JP Hochbaum · Feb 24, 2015

With this offseason coming up with more pitchers than the league could handle in FA, I don't see any reason to lose any hitting assets to trade for Hamels. The Cubs have all the bargaining power here, so if a trade does happen the Cubs will get the best deal possible or not make it.

brett05 · Feb 24, 2015

I'd say at best they are in the top ten if all things go well, but pre-season I agree with the article that they are somewhere in the 15-20 range.

chibears55 · Feb 24, 2015

JP Hochbaum said:
With this offseason coming up with more pitchers than the league could handle in FA, I don't see any reason to lose any hitting assets to trade for Hamels. The Cubs have all the bargaining power here, so if a trade does happen the Cubs will get the best deal possible or not make it.

There no guarantee right now that a TOR starter will be available in 2015 off season. ..

Plus...

Money wise.. rather pay Hamels 23 mil over next 4 yrs then get in a bidding war and possibly end up paying a guy 30 mil over 7 yrs....

Amaro may want the moon of prospects right now but if no team offering him that then he just gonna have to settle for something closer to earth..
Especially if Hamels keeps pressing the issue..

JP Hochbaum · Feb 24, 2015

chibears55 said:
There no guarantee right now that a TOR starter will be available in 2015 off season. ..

Plus...

Money wise.. rather pay Hamels 23 mil over next 4 yrs then get in a bidding war and possibly end up paying a guy 30 mil over 7 yrs....

Amaro may want the moon of prospects right now but if no team offering him that then he just gonna have to settle for something closer to earth..
Especially if Hamels keeps pressing the issue..

Well it kind of is guaranteed, their are numerous contracts expiring. Plus who cares if they overpay? You're overpaying pitchers now because we are going to have 5+ years of paying a lineup very little.

JP Hochbaum · Feb 24, 2015

When you look at the five most similar prospect classes that the Cubs have (which I argue may be the best i history), it shows that keeping your prospects gives you an overall better WAR.

Now I think the key is trading away the guys that you know won't pan out. So if Baez struggles and the Phillies want him as a piece then I say trade Baez, but if it is Soler, Bryant, Russell, you deny the trade hands down.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/five-historical-precedents-cubs-loaded-top-100-class/

chibears55 · Feb 24, 2015

JP Hochbaum said:
Well it kind of is guaranteed, their are numerous contracts expiring. Plus who cares if they overpay? You're overpaying pitchers now because we are going to have 5+ years of paying a lineup very little.

Still doesn't guarantee they wont extend and there no guarantee they want to play for the cubs...

Why overpay an extra 7 or 8 mil a yr for an extra 3 + yrs if you dont have to if you can get Hamels..

That money could be spent elsewhere or in the future when you would've owed someone 30+ mil who closer to 40 and not pitching like he worth 30 mil anymore

JP Hochbaum · Feb 24, 2015

chibears55 said:
Still doesn't guarantee they wont extend and there no guarantee they want to play for the cubs...

Why overpay an extra 7 or 8 mil a yr for an extra 3 + yrs if you dont have to if you can get Hamels..

That money could be spent elsewhere or in the future when you would've owed someone 30+ mil who closer to 40 and not pitching like he worth 30 mil anymore

I think you are painting a false scenario here to help your argument.

1) Expecting everyone to get extended is so incredibly rare it is just not worth entertaining.

2) You are expecting Scherzer money in a market next year where there are more pitchers than this last year, which would actually bring salaries down.

3) And like the Braves of the 90's it is best to trade away the guys that you know won't pan out versus trading away the guys you are pretty sure are plus War players.

TC in Mississippi · Feb 24, 2015

chibears55 said:
Still doesn't guarantee they wont extend and there no guarantee they want to play for the cubs...

Why overpay an extra 7 or 8 mil a yr for an extra 3 + yrs if you dont have to if you can get Hamels..

That money could be spent elsewhere or in the future when you would've owed someone 30+ mil who closer to 40 and not pitching like he worth 30 mil anymore

I completely agree with you about the money and the desire for Hamels. He would fit perfectly. I just don't see the Cubs offering what it would take to get him, and frankly I wouldn't want them to. What you suggested to get him is basically robbing the Phillies, that's not going to happen. What Amaro is asking is an overreach but it's not a crazy overreach. San Diego offered Cory Spangenberg and Austin Hedges plus a third player and it wasn't enough. That's a fairly reasonable package. A possible Cubs equivalent would be Kyle Schwarber and Albert Almora or Billy McKinney and then maybe a pitcher down further in the system. The Cubs wouldn't make that offer and again the Padres offer wasn't enough. You seem to think Amaro's demands are completely unreasonable and while they're a little high they're not silly high. 4 plus year of Hamels at that salary in this market is very valuable. You're going to have to pay. I just don't think the Cubs are at a point where they're going to pay that quite yet. They'll get another pitcher, probably this year, but they may not need a #1. Maybe Arrieta shows himself to be that guy and despite being a Boras client he's indicated that he'll listen to extension offers. Maybe they can get a younger guy that be the #3 but could get better. Again I'm with you on wanting Hamels, anyone would be, the need just does not justify the price tag even if that price goes down a bit.

TC in Mississippi · Feb 24, 2015

JP Hochbaum said:
I think you are painting a false scenario here to help your argument.

1) Expecting everyone to get extended is so incredibly rare it is just not worth entertaining.

2) You are expecting Scherzer money in a market next year where there are more pitchers than this last year, which would actually bring salaries down.

3) And like the Braves of the 90's it is best to trade away the guys that you know won't pan out versus trading away the guys you are pretty sure are plus War players.

In chibear55's defense I do think the top 3 guys, likely Price, Zimmermann and Cueto will get something close to Scherzer money. Your point is well taken in the depth though and there might be some reasonable contracts to be had.

CSF77 · Feb 24, 2015

Career avg:
Jason Hammel: 4.27 FIP. Last year 3.92. 4.00 FIP is league avg. He is a #4 SP.
Travis Wood: 4.17 FIP last year 4.38 Again right at league avg again a #4 type.
Edwin Jackson: 4.23 FIP last year 4.45 FIP. Again a #4 type.

I'm not arguing that they do not need a 1-3 SP type here. My argument is now is not the right time to do it.

This is what I would do:

I would focus on fixing Wood and Jackson and have them start. To pump up their trade values. Wada I would put in the pen. Turner and Hendricks in Iowa as they have Turner on a .500 mil minor league split. Give Jackson and Wood a chance to reestablish themselves as league #4 pitchers. Bottom line is they are proven products while Hendricks/Wada/Turner are not. But there is an issue of control and investment going on here. Add to it trying to get the most return value built up.

Looking at stuff alone Jackson has good stuff. Better than Hendricks. Hendricks IMO was ahead of the learning curve in scouting while the league was behind with him. All things equal then it goes by talent. IMO at best he is a 4.00 FIP SP. Wada IMO will never amount to much. Age is a big factor. Turner diamond in the rough. They need to develop him.

Now later season they will be getting into a over load of hitting talent ready to emerge. At that point they should look to unload Wood and Jackson and add Hendricks (or Turner) and then trade up for a 1-3 type. To be honest I would rather have them pay less in prospects for a guy like Cueto or Price then resign them to a long term.

That is being smart about it. They still have some issues going on and just eating 22 mil with Jackson will effect future payroll. The "best" situation for the Cubs to be in is Jackson to start to look like the guy they paid for and then when it looks stupid to trade him to do it.

Parade_Rain · Feb 24, 2015

The Phillies are asking way too much. It's a game of chicken. Let them be the ones who flinch. Hamels is not worth Russell. If Castro continues to show that the bad Sveum years were due to Sveum, his isn't going to be traded. Russell isn't going to be coming up taking Castro's place, when there are questions about his body type being that of a SS. You trade Baez, Villanueva and a A level pitcher, not Edwards. That's the maximum offer.

TC in Mississippi · Feb 24, 2015

CSF77 said:
Career avg:
Jason Hammel: 4.27 FIP. Last year 3.92. 4.00 FIP is league avg. He is a #4 SP.
Travis Wood: 4.17 FIP last year 4.38 Again right at league avg again a #4 type.
Edwin Jackson: 4.23 FIP last year 4.45 FIP. Again a #4 type.

I'm not arguing that they do not need a 1-3 SP type here. My argument is now is not the right time to do it.

This is what I would do:

I would focus on fixing Wood and Jackson and have them start. To pump up their trade values. Wada I would put in the pen. Turner and Hendricks in Iowa as they have Turner on a .500 mil minor league split. Give Jackson and Wood a chance to reestablish themselves as league #4 pitchers. Bottom line is they are proven products while Hendricks/Wada/Turner are not. But there is an issue of control and investment going on here. Add to it trying to get the most return value built up.

Looking at stuff alone Jackson has good stuff. Better than Hendricks. Hendricks IMO was ahead of the learning curve in scouting while the league was behind with him. All things equal then it goes by talent. IMO at best he is a 4.00 FIP SP. Wada IMO will never amount to much. Age is a big factor. Turner diamond in the rough. They need to develop him.

Now later season they will be getting into a over load of hitting talent ready to emerge. At that point they should look to unload Wood and Jackson and add Hendricks (or Turner) and then trade up for a 1-3 type. To be honest I would rather have them pay less in prospects for a guy like Cueto or Price then resign them to a long term.

That is being smart about it. They still have some issues going on and just eating 22 mil with Jackson will effect future payroll. The "best" situation for the Cubs to be in is Jackson to start to look like the guy they paid for and then when it looks stupid to trade him to do it.

I agree with an awful lot of that although I've really come around on Hendricks based on a lot of reading and some personal opinions from guys who have seen him over a period of time. Still his upside is a #3 in a good rotation and he's probably at least a year away from that. There is absolutely no question that the best case scenario would be for Jackson or Wood to win that #5 job. both for value and for what their upside brings. The hope is also that Hammell outplays his history and is a #3, like you I'm skeptical of that though. In any case you just don't pay what it's going to take to get Hamels right now. Even if Amaro's asking goes down the price will still include on of the top prospects. It's too much.

TC in Mississippi · Feb 24, 2015

Parade_Rain said:
The Phillies are asking way too much. It's a game of chicken. Let them be the ones who flinch. Hamels is not worth Russell. If Castro continues to show that the bad Sveum years were due to Sveum, his isn't going to be traded. Russell isn't going to be coming up taking Castro's place, when there are questions about his body type being that of a SS. You trade Baez, Villanueva and a A level pitcher, not Edwards. That's the maximum offer.

Really that's fleecing the Phillies so that's too low. Sometimes value is just higher than you're willing to pay. A lot of sources say the Mets went after Castro hard but weren't willing to give up two of their young starters for him. Like it or not that's the value of a 24 year old 3 time All Star on a sweetheart deal. I wouldn't have done it if I were the Mets either, but I do think that is his value. Often need, opportunity and value just don't line up.

brett05 · Feb 24, 2015

Parade_Rain said:
The Phillies are asking way too much. It's a game of chicken. Let them be the ones who flinch. Hamels is not worth Russell. If Castro continues to show that the bad Sveum years were due to Sveum, his isn't going to be traded. Russell isn't going to be coming up taking Castro's place, when there are questions about his body type being that of a SS. You trade Baez, Villanueva and a A level pitcher, not Edwards. That's the maximum offer.

So you think Shark > Hamels?

JP Hochbaum · Feb 24, 2015

Parade_Rain said:
The Phillies are asking way too much. It's a game of chicken. Let them be the ones who flinch. Hamels is not worth Russell. If Castro continues to show that the bad Sveum years were due to Sveum, his isn't going to be traded. Russell isn't going to be coming up taking Castro's place, when there are questions about his body type being that of a SS. You trade Baez, Villanueva and a A level pitcher, not Edwards. That's the maximum offer.

That is really the issue. IF the Phils ask for too much you say no, if they want prospects outside of the MLB top 20, then you start talking.

CSF77 · Feb 24, 2015

TC in Mississippi said:
I agree with an awful lot of that although I've really come around on Hendricks based on a lot of reading and some personal opinions from guys who have seen him over a period of time. Still his upside is a #3 in a good rotation and he's probably at least a year away from that. There is absolutely no question that the best case scenario would be for Jackson or Wood to win that #5 job. both for value and for what their upside brings. The hope is also that Hammell outplays his history and is a #3, like you I'm skeptical of that though. In any case you just don't pay what it's going to take to get Hamels right now. Even if Amaro's asking goes down the price will still include on of the top prospects. It's too much.

It has little to do with the first half of 2015. It have more to do with the 16 month window. They gave Wood a 5 mil deal. Trust me that was to build up trade value. Jackson is 22 mil they are stuck with. That is not chump change and that amount affects 2016's budget. Just Lester's pay bump and Arrieta's arb2 case alone are points of concern going into 2016 much less adding another equal F/A.

The whole point here is they need to clear payroll and the best way is to play the problem hoping it pays off. If it fails then they have depth going on to back fill. That should be the priority.

To be honest here Hendricks befitted by the league not knowing him. Him sitting in AAA for 3 months and coming out in the 2nd half benifits him as he will still be a unknown factor vs when the games mattering him being a known factor.

I believe talent will prove to be the most honest gauge here. Hendricks lacks a major league quality fastball and has to depend on a change and location to survive in the league. Those types rarely succeed. It has happened but you never see guys with Hendricks' stuff talked about as top picks. ever

TC in Mississippi · Feb 24, 2015

CSF77 said:
It has little to do with the first half of 2015. It have more to do with the 16 month window. They gave Wood a 5 mil deal. Trust me that was to build up trade value. Jackson is 22 mil they are stuck with. That is not chump change and that amount affects 2016's budget. Just Lester's pay bump and Arrieta's arb2 case alone are points of concern going into 2016 much less adding another equal F/A.

The whole point here is they need to clear payroll and the best way is to play the problem hoping it pays off. If it fails then they have depth going on to back fill. That should be the priority.

To be honest here Hendricks befitted by the league not knowing him. Him sitting in AAA for 3 months and coming out in the 2nd half benifits him as he will still be a unknown factor vs when the games mattering him being a known factor.

I believe talent will prove to be the most honest gauge here. Hendricks lacks a major league quality fastball and has to depend on a change and location to survive in the league. Those types rarely succeed. It has happened but you never see guys with Hendricks' stuff talked about as top picks. ever

I would have agreed with you 100% on Hendricks two months ago and a large part of me still does. Give me a guy with velocity and control any day but I've heard so much good stuff about Hendricks over the last two months by smart baseball people that I've started to change my opinion. Here are some thoughts by former pro scout Kevin Gallo from his piece on Cubs Den a few weeks back:

Now lets shift to a player we talked about that my mentor thought was underrated. That would be Kyle Hendricks, whom he views as a RHP that throws like a LHP. He sees Hendricks as a RHP version of Jamie Moyer, tricking batters and keeping them off balance. Hendricks has one above average pitch, his change up, but he has plus plus command. Hendricks proves that having pinpoint control at 88 to 90 can get hitters out just as easy as a 96 mph FB. My mentor believes scouts have a tendency to put too much focus on velocity and not enough importance on command. We both find Hendricks' arm action and mechanics to be very clean and don't foresee any arm issues arising in the future. As we said with Kris Bryant in the previous post, just remember that intelligence can be underrated and Hendricks is a very smart ballplayer.

Every single thing I've heard about this kid points to his his extraordinary intelligence and capacity to adjust. Now your instincts and my initial instincts might still be correct but the scouting love for this kid is enormous and I can't overlook that just yet. I'm excited to see his 2015.

Boobaby1 · Feb 24, 2015

TC in Mississippi said:
In chibear55's defense I do think the top 3 guys, likely Price, Zimmermann and Cueto will get something close to Scherzer money. Your point is well taken in the depth though and there might be some reasonable contracts to be had.

Zimmermann and Cueto will get closer to Lester money. Price will get closer to Scherzer money IMO.

That said. Lets not forget about the other pitchers out there via free agency, and the possibility always looms big to me with smaller market teams such as Cinci, Colorado, Oakland, Miami, KC, Minnesota for example, that may have pitching and know they won't be able to extend or want to put more prospects in their system that don't necessarily have to be the great ones.

This is where I might look first.

Also, the Cubs had stated that they are looking for TOR pitching which could mean a solid #2 to pair with Arrieta, although an equal to or better than Lester would naturally be the best of both worlds.

brett05 · Feb 24, 2015

As has been stated, some guys are going to sign. Others will be traded and sign there (Ex. Shark) and there will be a lot of teams looking for a TOR as there always is. Perhaps the time is right for the Twins and Astros as it is for the Cubs.

I'm always going to want a guarantee today instead of a promise tomorrow.

TC in Mississippi · Feb 24, 2015

brett05 said:
As has been stated, some guys are going to sign. Others will be traded and sign there (Ex. Shark) and there will be a lot of teams looking for a TOR as there always is. Perhaps the time is right for the Twins and Astros as it is for the Cubs.

I'm always going to want a guarantee today instead of a promise tomorrow.

It's always about finding the balance of both for the teams that compete year in and year out isn't it? Oh and yeah, I think both the Astros and the Twins are going to be formidable sooner rather than later. I think Houston might climb out of the cellar this year with the Twins not far behind and by 2017 or so you might be talking about both of them as contenders for a few years.

Cole hamels

Well-known member

867-5309

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

CCS Staff

CCS Staff

Well-known member

CCS Donator

My favorite teams

CCS Staff

CCS Staff

867-5309

Well-known member

Well-known member

CCS Staff

New member

867-5309

CCS Staff